IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the Central Government can impose reasonable restrictions on passport issuance under the Passports Act, even when a court permits travel without specifying a time frame.

JUDGMENT :

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) :

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Clause (a)(ii) of a Notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India bearing no. G.S.R 570(E) dated August 25, 1993 in as much as the said sub-clause restricts the issuance of passport to one year in cases where the jurisdictional criminal court, where a criminal case is pending against the applicant, grants permission to the applicant to depart from India without specifying the period for the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter refer to as, “the 1967 Act”), provides a bar to issuance of passports in respect of persons against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. The concerned Notification bearing no. G.S.R 570(E) dated August 25, 1993 provides exemption to such bar in cases where the applicant produces orders from the court concerned permitting him/her to depart from India.

3. Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) thereof stipulates that such passport shall be issued, in cases where the court permits the person to depart from India and specifies a period, for such period.

4. Sub-clause (ii), however, provides that if no such period is specified in the order although the person is permitted to depart from India, the passport shall be issued for the period on one year.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that what the Central Government grants in one hand in sub-clause (i), is taken away by it in sub-clause (ii). It is argued that sub-clause (ii) should be read down by striking out the period of one year and replacing the same with ten years, inline with Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980 which provides the default period of issuance of Passport to be ten years.

6. The logic behind such argument is that in cases where the court specifies a period for permission to travel abroad, sub-clause (i) mandates that the Passport Authority shall abide by the same by issuing the passport for such a period, thus conferring the power entirely on the jurisdictional court to decide the period for which such passport shall be issued.

7. However, when the court passes a similar order permitting the applicant to travel abroad in an unbridled manner without restricting such time, the Central Government restricts the period of such passport to merely one year under sub-clause (ii), which is in stark contravention of Rule 12 of the 1980 Rules, which stipulates ten years as the norm regarding the period of passport by default. It is argued that where the court granting such permission itself does not restrict the time, the period of the grant of passport should be inconsonance with the default period as provided in law and cannot be more restrictive than where the court specifies a time.

8. Having conferred the discretion on the court under sub-clause (i), the same cannot be taken away in a case where a more liberal order is passed by the Court, granting permission without restricting the time.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has not been any challenge before any High Court to the vires of sub-clause (ii) of the Notification. However, learned counsel cites several judgments of different High Courts and the Supreme Court to prove his point otherwise by analogy.

10. The first judgment cited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is Venkata Siva Kumar Yadhanaputi Vs Union of India, reported at 2024 SCC OnLine TS 402. The other judgments cited are Ravi Kumar Panasa Vs Union of India, reported at 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3474, an unreported judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 220 of 2022 [Ganni Bhaskara Rao vs. The Union of India and another], Anantula Karunakar Reddy vs Union of India and Ors., reported at 2023 SCC OnLine TS 4019 and a judgment of the Madras High Court in W